Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith's outtakes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aerosmith's outtakes
A list of unpublished outtakes is too specialist for a general enyclopedia (WP:NOT). kingboyk 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep: The Beatles bootlegs is also too specialist then. List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs is also too specialist then. I think it's important to chronicle the unreleased recordings of an important band (many songs of which actually worked their way onto subsequent albums). I think having one article for unreleased recordings is OK, considering many bands on Wikipedia have separate articles for every song they've ever recorded. I think we can spare one article for Aerosmith's unreleased recordings. I'm sure it could be modified, so it's not an all-out list and possibly converted to paragraph form. However, that can be done over time. Deleting an article and having to redo it again is a much more difficult and time-consuming process. I also urge that Gonzaloc be notified of this AfD nomination, since he created the content anyway, and would be the one most likely to be able to verify/cite the data. I simply rescued the information as it was deleted from the Aerosmith article a while back and tried to make it more visually appealing. --Abog 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Outtakes are non-notable. Agree that the other mentioned articles are far too specialist as well. Would need to see reliable sourcing for this one. GassyGuy 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I also recently found Unreleased Madonna songs, List of rare AC/DC songs, and Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings. And I'm sure there are more such articles. Until these, and the ones mentioned above are Afd'd too, this can simply be written off as a case of total bias against Aerosmith, or myself. --Abog 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, actually, nominating all of those now would probably be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. Regardless, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to keep. GassyGuy 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that many of these Wiki rules contradict each other. Regardless, no real reason why this particular article (and not the others) should be deleted has been presented yet, other than the subject matter is "too specialist", which makes it no different from the other articles. I think it's just a case of someone hating and denying the notability of Aerosmith is really what it all comes down to. --Abog 05:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the other articles, more likely than not, need to go too. One thing to consider, however, is the presence of reliable sources. Sourcing this article would be a step in the right direction. Again, though, the fact that other articles exist which shouldn't exist doesn't mean we have to give up and let every article on an unencyclopaedic topic stay. GassyGuy 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pull the other one mate. If you checked my contribs you'd see that I've been working on articles one band at a time, and I've been adding and fixing details in Aerosmith articles. More recently, I've been doing Hawkwind. This is because I'm cataloguing my record collection. Hardly an Aerosmith hater then, eh? If that's the best counter argument you can make it really proves my point doesn't it? BTW, we have a rule on AFD - the existence of other bad articles isn't acceptable as an argument to keep. --kingboyk 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily saying that any of these articles (on B-sides, outtakes, bootlegs, etc.) should go, I'm just saying there shouldn't be double standards applied on Wikipedia. I think these articles on unreleased recordings of all major artists have value. Many of these sub-articles were created to make the main artist page or discography page not as long, as well as allow users to know the important musical history of many important, prominent musicians. I alsmost view the deletion of these articles as depriving users of historical research and music in general. When we have 100s of articles for all individual songs an artist has recorded, yet we can't even have just 1 article chronicling unreleased material? It just doesn't seem justified. --Abog 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every song an artist recorded also doesn't get an article, only the notable ones. Simply existing doesn't make a song (or anything else) notable. I know I probably seem like a broken record, but rather than make accusations of inconsistent standards or hatred of Aerosmith or other such things, could at least some time be put to reliably sourcing this article? GassyGuy 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where have you been? AC/DC has 104 songs that have their own articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they have List of rare AC/DC songs. And personally, I have no problem with that. I don't view it as being other crap that exists. I view it as useful information that exists. I just wish Aerosmith could have the same, that's all. I just don't understand this sudden article deletion campaign. As far as souring the article, there are notations after many of the songs on where they came from or where they later resurfaced. And the ones that resurfaced need not a citation as one can just look at an album like Pandora's Box and see that it's there. Additionally, I didn't really come up with this list. If you look at the discussion page for the article, you'll see that I simply rescued the information as it was originally on the main article but deleted as it was out of place there, so I made this article and cleaned the info up a bit. But if you want citations, you're going to have to contact Gonzaloc as he came up with the information. --Abog 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should rephrase: Every song an artist recorded is not supposed to get an article. I don't have the time or energy right now, but quite a few of the songs in Category:AC/DC songs need to be merged and redirected to their parent album as non-notable for stand-alone articles. And since you don't like "other crap exists," you probably right like this one either, but, we have an essay about potentially useful stuff as well. Since I think I'm starting to steer this discussion off course, I'll back off and let other folks comment now. GassyGuy 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well then, if that's the case, why should I bother creating any more articles on Wikipedia? I thought Wikipedia is to expand knowledge and make the internet not suck, rather than be a generalist encyclopeida. I thought it was supposed to draw on a multitude of people with specified areas of interest and knowledge to create articles in their special areas. But if Wikipedia is all about being generalist and deleting articles rather than creating them now, I guess I'll be leaving. I mean why should I waste my time creating an article on an Aerosmith song if it's not wanted and will be deleted anyway? --Abog 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should rephrase: Every song an artist recorded is not supposed to get an article. I don't have the time or energy right now, but quite a few of the songs in Category:AC/DC songs need to be merged and redirected to their parent album as non-notable for stand-alone articles. And since you don't like "other crap exists," you probably right like this one either, but, we have an essay about potentially useful stuff as well. Since I think I'm starting to steer this discussion off course, I'll back off and let other folks comment now. GassyGuy 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where have you been? AC/DC has 104 songs that have their own articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they have List of rare AC/DC songs. And personally, I have no problem with that. I don't view it as being other crap that exists. I view it as useful information that exists. I just wish Aerosmith could have the same, that's all. I just don't understand this sudden article deletion campaign. As far as souring the article, there are notations after many of the songs on where they came from or where they later resurfaced. And the ones that resurfaced need not a citation as one can just look at an album like Pandora's Box and see that it's there. Additionally, I didn't really come up with this list. If you look at the discussion page for the article, you'll see that I simply rescued the information as it was originally on the main article but deleted as it was out of place there, so I made this article and cleaned the info up a bit. But if you want citations, you're going to have to contact Gonzaloc as he came up with the information. --Abog 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every song an artist recorded also doesn't get an article, only the notable ones. Simply existing doesn't make a song (or anything else) notable. I know I probably seem like a broken record, but rather than make accusations of inconsistent standards or hatred of Aerosmith or other such things, could at least some time be put to reliably sourcing this article? GassyGuy 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily saying that any of these articles (on B-sides, outtakes, bootlegs, etc.) should go, I'm just saying there shouldn't be double standards applied on Wikipedia. I think these articles on unreleased recordings of all major artists have value. Many of these sub-articles were created to make the main artist page or discography page not as long, as well as allow users to know the important musical history of many important, prominent musicians. I alsmost view the deletion of these articles as depriving users of historical research and music in general. When we have 100s of articles for all individual songs an artist has recorded, yet we can't even have just 1 article chronicling unreleased material? It just doesn't seem justified. --Abog 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)- It's been about a week now, and I think the result is "no consensus". I already compromised by letting the "Aerosmith in popular culture" article go, by merging the info into other articles. However, this is a notable list of unreleased recordings of a notable, long-lived highly important musical group. I believe Aerosmith is listed as a high-priority musician, and thus I think it's important that an article exists chronicling their unreleased recorded material. I know that most of this info is pretty reliable and indeed true. One needs to only read the band's autobiography Walk This Way, purchase Pandora's Box, buy a few singles, etc. to verify most of this information. Sure, it could be better sourced and cited, but that is no reason to delete it. Additionally, as already stated, almost all other artists of the same prominence and caliber of Aerosmith have similar articles chronicling unreleased material, B-sides, bootlegs, and the like. I believe it is important to have these articles, as they are chronicles of the artists' music, whether it has been recorded or not, and gives more insight into the artist, their music, and their albums. Remember, when in doubt, don't delete. Abog 07:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
